IF there's an insurrection, it won't be the tea partiers or the ex-military in the country that start it. Just look at the push for the minimum wage outcry, and you'll see where it'll start. The problem hasn't been wages, it's been the spending power of the dollar, which is purposely being pushed down by the Fed. You can raise the minimum wage to $15 and you'll see very little upward mobility, because the cost of goods will rise right along with it and you'll see even more laid off. That will be the cause of an uprising.

Unless they can increase the spending value of the dollar, any increase in wages is only going to create more issues.

You're correct that WE won't start it. I have no idea what the impetus will be or which straw will finally break the camel's back per se, but it will happen eventually. It's no longer a matter of IF, but WHEN. For those that say that it could never happen here, I give you the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. It has and it will again.

_________________

January 22nd, 2014, 1:02 pm

aManNamedSuh

Heisman Winner

Joined: July 14th, 2005, 11:58 amPosts: 814

Re: Petition to ban Sly from the boards

So you're basically saying choose a side now? Helter Skelter style? I think the people choosing sides now are the people causing the divide in the first place. So if you want to avoid this up coming unavoidable "revolution" the best thing to do is stay neutral and encourage others to the the same thing.

Actually folks, being prior military I need to chime in here. There are a few things wrong with the thoughts going on, and it's from MY perspective that they are wrong.

1. The military is being changed to fit into the new agenda. The Marine Corps has just lowered their standards for the PFT in order to allow for women to meet the grade. Instead of maintaining the level and making them meet it for the right to join a combat unit, they've dropped it, to make it easier. As a combat medic I needed to do 15 Pull ups in order to meet the basic standard, but was always pushed to 18. Women had to do a 90 second arm hang. Yes, arm hang, grab the bar and hold your body off the ground for 90 seconds.

2. For the veterans, and those who would rise up against the U.S. government, they have no cohesive unit structure and would be little more than isolated pockets of guerilla warriors, who based on level of physical fitness and civilian support, would be snuffed out rather quickly. If they are meeting together now, and training, they are already being tracked and are known.

3. IF there were to be an uprising, the "poor" will not fight the government, nor for the government, they will snatch and grab anything and everything. Think of Hurricane Katrina on a much larger scale.

4. The military will not have access to all of their toys like we think they do, they will be locked down in armory, and the men will be locked down in the barracks while another military force that is already residing in different locations around this country for "training" purposes actually institute Martial law. Through my dad, who is WAY OUT THERE, he continues to talk of a RESTRICTED section of the base in Grayling where the Chinese military lives and operates. When I trained there in the late 90's, ALL of the road signs for traffic flow looked as if they'd come from Europe.

So you can plan your Red Dawns, and dream about your "what I'd do if" but the reality is that the element of surprise is on the side of those who will kick this off. Martial law can and will be declared at a time of their choosing, and those who choose to fight will be located and destroyed.

We've reached terminal velocity in the death of this country a long time ago, and our current administration has just pushed fast forward. He is an enemy of the United States and has the backing of people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes even John Boehner and more Republicans that are RINO's.

For me to say anything further would mean that we have to move this to Christianity thread

You seem to think that the US military is more massive than it actually is. If your beliefs were true, it wouldn't have taken 8 years to eliminate insurgents (fat chance) in Iraq or 12 years and counting in Afghanistan. Keep in mind that those countries only have a fraction of the population or land mass of this one. Put two and two together. The US military can't be everywhere at once and many, if not a majority, will refuse to fire upon US citizens. Furthermore, military members have a right to refuse unlawful orders.

Trust me. In every scenario I've envisioned, things end up very badly for libtards. The funniest part is that they will start it, but we will end it.

Of course, Obama is attempting to change the inevitable outcome by replacing military officers who he feels are not loyal to him and adding gays and women to combat arms, but it won't work. Conservatives feel a sense of duty and will join the military regardless. Liberals, on the other hand, view joining the military as a fate worse than death, so they will not. He might flip 5%, but that won't mean much in the larger scope of things.

In addition, most sheriff departments and non-urban police departments are conservative by nature. Who do you think they will side with? Once again, those with a liberal mentality are unlikely to join those career fields. This doesn't require a degree in rocket science to figure out. But to some, I suppose it does.

I could tell you a story about how I, along with 5 other American soldiers, took out an entire French tank platoon during a training exercise while I was stationed in Germany. It was easy. Distract. Deflect. Destroy. I could do the same thing here and I wouldn't even need hardened, veteran soldiers to do it. Of course, they would have to run fast, but that's a story for another day.

What most people incorrectly envision is a force upon force confrontation. The US military against the rebel forces. That isn't likely to happen at all. It will be a battle of attrition via guerilla warfare. Unless a tyrant US President wants to bomb entire cities to get a few rebels, he has zero chance to win.

Beside, it's not as if the rebels will reside in actual cities where the free-loaders live. During an insurrection, those cities will be cut off from basic food supplies due to safety considerations from the truckers supplying them. They will be the ones looting and rioting, so why go there? If they venture beyond the city to loot and pillar, they'll get what they deserve. If they stay there, they will be killed by their own. Win. Win.

Seriously, I hope it doesn't come to this, but the Democrats have pushed so far to the left that I think it's inevitable. It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN.

So you're basically saying choose a side now? Helter Skelter style? I think the people choosing sides now are the people causing the divide in the first place. So if you want to avoid this up coming unavoidable "revolution" the best thing to do is stay neutral and encourage others to the the same thing.

I find this funny. What exactly is "neutral"?

Allow unborn babies to be killed?Allow homosexuals to be married?Allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?Increase the debt to astronomical levels?Increase welfare, food stamps, and unemployment that allows people to do nothing at the expense of those who actually work for a living?Continue to pay toward Social Security and Medicare, which will become insolvent by the time we retire?Continue to reward government union employees with pay and benefits that most of us in the private sector can only dream about getting?

Please explain to me how I can be "neutral" about these issues. Thanks in advance.

_________________

January 22nd, 2014, 2:36 pm

aManNamedSuh

Heisman Winner

Joined: July 14th, 2005, 11:58 amPosts: 814

Re: Petition to ban Sly from the boards

slybri19 wrote:

I find this funny. What exactly is "neutral"?

Allow unborn babies to be killed? Doesn't affect me, while I may feel bad for the family or unborn baby and believe they have sinned, this doesn't affect me in the slightest.Allow homosexuals to be married?

I don't have a problem with this on the whole, people can marry whomever they want doesn't bother me. I understand other aspects are called into question but just because someone has a different lifestyle doesn't mean they should be able to receive the same benefits as a straight person.

Allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

This has been what America has been about for a long time. It is abused but if you don't think record numbers of illegal immigrants aren't being deported currently you'd be wrong.

Increase the debt to astronomical levels?

Yep, agreed we need a person in the office dedicated to balancing the budget, last person to do that was who again? BTW I'm anything but a Democrat.

Increase welfare, food stamps, and unemployment that allows people to do nothing at the expense of those who actually work for a living?

Unfortunately it would cost more money punishing these people than it would to allow them to take advantage of it. I think you catch the ones you an and hope it deters others.

Continue to pay toward Social Security and Medicare, which will become insolvent by the time we retire?

I've planned my retirement around not having SS, but we non retired people pay now for the people receiving it now. It's a tough model but eliminating it now would cost millions of baby boomers any existence of a normal life. We pay for people stupidity, they key is balancing it.

Continue to reward government union employees with pay and benefits that most of us in the private sector can only dream about getting?

Unions drive me nuts for sure, they served a purpose at one time but not anymore. Do I think they need to be completely eliminated, no but they need to be stripped of a great deal of some of their bargaining power.

Please explain to me how I can be "neutral" about these issues. Thanks in advance.

All in all, I think taking to a side and believing in all of their viewing takes away from your individualism. Come back to the middle, there will always be a grey area in life it that where we should spawn our view points from. In reality I don't have a problem with what you say, you have every right be be entitled to your opinion.

I'm gonna disregard a majority of social issues since those are of a personal opinion. So, let's look at facts, shall we?

aManNamedSuh wrote:

Allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

This has been what America has been about for a long time. It is abused but if you don't think record numbers of illegal immigrants aren't being deported currently you'd be wrong.

The Obama Administration is now reporting those caught at and returned at the border as those being deported. It is a bald faced lie. No previous President has ever included those figures in deportation numbers,

aManNamedSuh wrote:

Increase the debt to astronomical levels?

Yep, agreed we need a person in the office dedicated to balancing the budget, last person to do that was who again? BTW I'm anything but a Democrat.

But THAT man was Newt Gingrich. Bill Clinton wanted to do anything but, but Newt bitch slapped him into submission. Learn your history before spouting off about things you know nothing about.

Furthermore, Clinton NEVER actually decreased the debt. If you go to treasury.gov, you'll see that the national debt actually increased under Clinton. While the public debt did indeed decrease, the intragovernment holding debt exceeded that decrease by a wide margin. What is that, you say? Clinton stole money from the Social Security Trust Fund and public sector union pension plans to pay for his spending. Wonder why Social Security is almost insolvent now? Blame Clinton. His IOU's are worth nothing now.

aManNamedSuh wrote:

Increase welfare, food stamps, and unemployment that allows people to do nothing at the expense of those who actually work for a living?

Unfortunately it would cost more money punishing these people than it would to allow them to take advantage of it. I think you catch the ones you an and hope it deters others.

How? In order to give benefits via taxation, you must first remove capital from the economy via taxation. Therefore, it is a zero sum game. There is no multiplier effect in play here since the money removed from the economy via taxation must first be factored into the equation.. So how exactly would it cost MORE to eliminate these programs than continue them. Please explain. Those of us with an IQ above single digits want to know.

_________________

January 22nd, 2014, 7:22 pm

aManNamedSuh

Heisman Winner

Joined: July 14th, 2005, 11:58 amPosts: 814

Re: Petition to ban Sly from the boards

slybri19 wrote:

I'm gonna disregard a majority of social issues since those are of a personal opinion. So, let's look at facts, shall we?

aManNamedSuh wrote:

Allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

This has been what America has been about for a long time. It is abused but if you don't think record numbers of illegal immigrants aren't being deported currently you'd be wrong.

The Obama Administration is now reporting those caught at and returned at the border as those being deported. It is a bald faced lie. No previous President has ever included those figures in deportation numbers,

aManNamedSuh wrote:

Increase the debt to astronomical levels?

Yep, agreed we need a person in the office dedicated to balancing the budget, last person to do that was who again? BTW I'm anything but a Democrat.

But THAT man was Newt Gingrich. Bill Clinton wanted to do anything but, but Newt bitch slapped him into submission. Learn your history before spouting off about things you know nothing about.

Furthermore, Clinton NEVER actually decreased the debt. If you go to treasury.gov, you'll see that the national debt actually increased under Clinton. While the public debt did indeed decrease, the intragovernment holding debt exceeded that decrease by a wide margin. What is that, you say? Clinton stole money from the Social Security Trust Fund and public sector union pension plans to pay for his spending. Wonder why Social Security is almost insolvent now? Blame Clinton. His IOU's are worth nothing now.

aManNamedSuh wrote:

Increase welfare, food stamps, and unemployment that allows people to do nothing at the expense of those who actually work for a living?

Unfortunately it would cost more money punishing these people than it would to allow them to take advantage of it. I think you catch the ones you an and hope it deters others.

How? In order to give benefits via taxation, you must first remove capital from the economy via taxation. Therefore, it is a zero sum game. There is no multiplier effect in play here since the money removed from the economy via taxation must first be factored into the equation.. So how exactly would it cost MORE to eliminate these programs than continue them. Please explain. Those of us with an IQ above single digits want to know.

My point is you are only looking at the fact that help your argument and completely turning a blind eye to anything that my refute it. As you did above hiding in loop holes or technicalities. It's cool I just don't choose to argue like that. You know full well that the president is always get credit for what was done under his watch, that's how it works. Much like I know Bush didn't physically catch Saddam Hussein, but he's I do give him and his administration the credit.

That's all I really feel like talking about this topic so go ahead fling an insult my way, I'll ignore it, and you'll more than likely fling a second insult just to see if you can get a reaction. Spoiler alert you won't.